Non-Violent Nationalism and Fundamental Change

Nationalism as a concept is defined by the formation of a distinct identity for a certain population in terms of their religion, ethnicity or class differences. This term was used to describe the rise of movements along these distinct lines. Since then the connotations of the word may have changed over time but its essential meaning has remained unchanged.

The term in essence refers to two varying sentiments. Broadly speaking, the first of these is a sense of identification with a certain nation based on ethnic, cultural or religious bounds. The second is a sentiment of loyalty to the nation as defined by these ethnic, cultural and religious bound. While the first only serves as a unifying factor in most cases, the second also serves as a rallying call for mass political mobilization. This has been obvious especially in the years immediately after the Second World War during the time of the disintegration of Colonial power structures and the subsequent creation of a bipolar world.

The concept of the non-violent movement was introduced to these anti-colonial movements early enough. Gandhi, the tiny, old man of Indian politics came up with the idea of a non-violent independence struggle. This was a struggle which initially rooted itself in a secular context but gradually became known as essentially being a Hindu Nationalist movement.

Gandhi¡¦s initial thrust had been towards unifying Indian natives under this banner of non-violence in order to garner support for an ouster of the British from India and an overhaul of the Indian government structure. What this meant was that Gandhi was looking for a ¡¥fundamental change¡¦ in the structure and hierarchies of the Indian state. This is highlighted in his writings: ¡§The state after withdrawal (of the Colonizers) will depend largely upon the manner of it. If, as you assume, they (the Colonizers) retire, it seems to me we shall still keep their constitution and shall carry on the government.¡¨

Gandhi was then visibly looking for a structural uprooting of the British / Colonial system and aimed to replace it with one more contributory to the state and, hence, less extractory in nature. This for him was the fundamental change in the system that was required for a successful transformation from a colonized to an independent state.

Gandhi¡¦s method of achieving this change was through the practice of nonviolent passive resistance. ¡§Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by the personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms.¡¨ ¡§The force of arms is powerless when matched against the force of love or the soul.¡¨ Passive resistance then was to be followed at all times in order to achieve the goal of independence, and more importantly of fundamental change.

However, even though Gandhi gave great lip-service to his non-violent nationalism, even this peaceful movement eventually descended into excessive amounts of violence and bloodshed which even the calming influence of Gandhi could not control. His appeals for nonviolence were met with bubbling enthusiasm but normally translated into an extreme disregard for the ¡§force of love or the soul¡¨ as mentioned above. Even when Gandhi preached the unity of the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs in one united India, mass murders were conducted on the basis of religious and Muslims and Sikhs were not the only perpetrators of this hatred.

The weakness of Gandhi¡¦s nationalism lay in his assumption that the religious identities of the people were assimilatory. He failed to recognize that his own philosophy was so deeply based in Hindu tradition that it appeared overtly Hindu Nationalist on close observation. This basis in Hindu tradition allowed it to become an easy target fro detractors.

A similar pattern was also visible in the South African movement against Apartheid. The intellectual leaders of the movement preached the very ideals that Gandhi espoused. They continued to preach the same concepts...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...Chenoweth and Stephan's arguments and research show that nonviolent campaigns are more successful than violent campaigns against violent political regimes. Though violent protests can show to be successful and they do get the point across though in a very different way, nonviolent protests I will have to agree, are the best and most efficient way to go about combating a violent opposition. With cases such as Dr. Martin Luther King, and Ghandi being two of the most noted cases. (not to say that there are not many more)
The two writers argue 2 main points as to why a nonviolent approaches are strategically more sound than those that promote violence. The first argument is t hat when a violent force (especially a regime) tries to repress an non-violent campaign, the repression may backfire. "First, repressing nonviolent campaigns may backfire. In backfire, an unjust act—often violent repression—recoils against its originators, often resulting in the breakdown of obedience among regime supporters, mobilization of the population against the regime, and international condemnation of the regime" (Cenoweth &amp; Stephan, 11) In turn when a violent regime confronts a non-violent regime with violence, it sends a message of hostility that will label that country...

...Nationalism throughout History and the Modern Age
With research and resources you will learn about Nationalism throughout History and the Modern Age. Nationalism because it is a political idea that involves a tough recognition of a set of individuals by way of a political being defined in nationalized conditions, for example a nation. And Modernity, because it is a take action of why and how thing develop and progress all the way through history. Because of these changes occurring allows us to exist in a modern society.
Modernity is relating to the history or traits of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time “Since the term "Modern" is used to describe a wide range of periods, any definition of modernity must account for the context in question. Modern can mean all of post-medieval European history, in the context of dividing history into three large epochs: Antiquity, Medieval, and Modern. Likewise, it is often used to describe the Euro-American culture that arises out of the Enlightenment and continues in some way into the present. The term "Modern" is also applied to the period beginning somewhere between 1870 and 1910, through the present, and even more specifically to the 1910-1960 periods”.
Nationalism is what most groups of citizen’s feel for their countries a sense of devotion, loyalty. To the citizens their country is the best it is a sense of pride “What...

...Midterm
The idea of nationalism is a new and complex phenomenon. It is difficult to gain an exact definition was what and how nationalism came to be, however there are popular ideas and theories. Two of the main approaches to understanding nationalism is through Anthony Smiths idea of primordialist and Benedict Anderson's constructivist approach. The primordialist approach explained by Smith is the idea that nations are natural phenomenon which are that have been around since the beginning of creation. The constructivist approach which Anderson describes is the idea that nations are made up by the members in them. Anderson defines nationalism as “an imagined political monnunity and imaged as both inherenly limited and sovereign” (Anderson, 5-7). However both ideas believe that there regardless of approaches both share the idea that people within nations share a strong bond and kinship with each other because they share a national identity in some way. Often times people creat their own nation identities bases on factors such as religion or territory, which leads to the way their ideas and places shape nationalism.
India has often been described as one state with two different nations trapped within it. There is a Hindu India and a Muslim India, both constantly clashing with one another due to lifestyle differences. The constant blood shed caused poet Muhammad Iqbal to derive the idea of a seperate...

...1. Non-violent Communication (NVC)
Nonviolent Communication is a process developed by Marshall Rosenberg which people use to communicate with greater compassion and clarity and is sometimes referred to as compassionate communication.
Its purpose is to create human connections that empower compassionate giving and receiving and to create governmental and corporate structure that supports compassionate giving and receiving.
It is about getting what you want for reasons you will not regret later. NVC is not about getting people to do what we want. It is about creating a quality of connection that gets everyone’s needs met through compassionate giving. The goal of NVC is to get one’s own needs met while also meeting others’ needs.
A key principle that supports this is the capacity to express oneself without use of good/bad, right/wrong judgment, hence the emphasis on expressing feelings and needs, instead of criticism or judgments.
The priority is given to create a high quality of connection between people, and to oneself. It aims to establish a safe context for connecting to others in an authentic and vulnerable way. Rather than judging, blaming or attacking, it is about starting with the neutral common ground so that you can connect on an empathic level by sharing your feelings.
1.1. Non-violent Communication Skills
1.1.1. Differentiating observation from evaluation
To be able to observe what is...

...Should civil disobedience be violent or non-violent?
Rishi Wadhwani
Due date: 02/05/12
Should Civil disobedience be violent or non-violent?
Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of the government. According to the etymology, civil disobedience has been present since the division of political power. There are many reasons why violent civil misbehaviour can be encouraged; nevertheless, the use of violence to treat with citizens can have a negative re-percussion.
Firstly, the use of violence to punish individuals refusing to follow the law is one of the most common methods of fighting against conflictive citizens. In many cases, violence is the only solution: “[A]n unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so ... This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment.” (Mahatma G. 1942, Non-violence in Peace and War). If the violence is used without any aim to kill or injure anyone, it is justified. The American and French revolution ended with peace-full democracies.
On the other hand, the use of violence can lead to a negative image of the government; this could lead to the loss of respect and control. The use of violence leads to innocent people getting involved in violent acts: “[T]he ultimate weakness...

...Nationalism can be defined as a feeling of a group of people, united together by powerful ties such as, common race, language, and culture. It is an extremely effective force that influences the life of mankind politically, socially and economically. The essence of nationalism binds the diverse people together as one. It promotes a spirit of unity among the people.
The source talks about how essential nationalism is, to one nation. It shows how without nationalism, there would be indifference, terror and desperation. The author sees nationalism as a very important factor in creating a unified environment for the people in one country. The source strongly agrees that nationalism is in fact, the most significant ingredient in reaching a common goal. Wars can be harmful to a country but it makes the people to unite, especially when their nation is threatened by an enemy.
The essence of nationalism binds the diverse people into a strong bond. The patriotic feelings of the people are provoked when there is a threat from another nation that may harm their own. People can have a temporary amnesia of their differences of status and beliefs. They stand hand in hand to fight against the enemy. The people of India, regardless of their religion fought as one for a common goal. They wanted the British to leave their country and in 1947, the British left India because of the spirit of...

...Exhibit 1.4 highlights the marketing implications of Internet technologies in the following categories: Bits not atoms, Mediating technology, Global reach, Network externality, Time moderator, Information equalizer, Scalable capacity, Open Standard, Market deconstruct, and Task Automation.
What fundamentalchanges has the Internet brought to marketing?
The balance of power is shifting to buyers—one of the most fundamentalchanges to marketing. Marketers have practically lost control of brand images due to blogs, online bulletin boards, and other online communication, and must consistently underpromise and overdeliver. Other changes:
Market fragmentation. The Internet put finality to this trend by extending to its ultimate—a market size of one customer—and prompted marketers to create products and communication to small target groups.
Death of distance. Geographic location is no longer a factor when collaborating with business partners, supply chain firms, or customers, or just chatting with friends.
Time compression. Time is not a factor with Internet communication between firms and their stakeholders. Online stores can be open 24/7; people can communicate as their schedules permit; times zones disappear for managers collaborating with partners on other continents.
Critical knowledge management. In the digital world, customer information is easy and inexpensive to gather, store, and...